Linked by nej_simon on Sat 11th Aug 2012 12:10 UTC
Legal "[...] tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet." $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.
Thread beginning with comment 530716
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Greedy
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Greedy"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

It's always fun to hear the fanboys' interpretation of Apple's desires/motives.
But the designs are not Apple's -- the designs did not originate at Apple.


Are you saying that Samsung did not copy Apple's products even though we now have internal Samsung documents showing them doing exactly that.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Greedy
by MOS6510 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Greedy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12
RE[4]: Greedy
by tupp on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Greedy"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Are you saying that Samsung did not copy Apple's products even though we now have internal Samsung documents showing them doing exactly that.

No. Imprecise fanboy reasoning is the culprit here (as it is in almost all issues involving Apple).

As I said, the designs did not originate at Apple. Whether or not Samsung copied the unoriginal Apple design is another issue.

However, the fanboys can't seem to understand that one issue makes the other moot. If the designs did not originate at Apple, then Apple has no rightful claim to the designs. So, it doesn't matter whether or not Samsung "copied" Apple, because they are actually emulating prior, non-Apple art.

Now, the issue of Samsung copying Apple is hardly an "open-and-shut" case. Internal Apple documents show that Apple copied Sony, yet fanboys dismiss that.

Furthermore, just because Samsung tried to emulate Apple with one product, it does not mean that they did not already have designs that were identical or very similar to what they sought. Samsung's own prior art was extremely close, with only very minor differences.

Of course, there is also the issue of obviousness. Everything about the design of Apple's (and its competitors) touchscreen products is obvious. This obviousness is reinforced by very early prior art in movies, product mock-ups, and old sketches. If the fanboys really believe that it is original to combine rounded corners with icons grids and a shiny, flush black bezel, etc, I suggest that they spend some time actually researching and looking at the vast, vibrant industrial design world that is, and was (and will be) out there, of which Apple is only a mere unremarkable speck. Truly great, inspired designs always appear on a regular basis.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:51 in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Interesting because that is not what the courts are saying. Apple seems to be slowly racking up wins all over the world!

And again if Apple is such a big thief, then why don't the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue??

I am confused here why 5 years later Apple has not been sued left and right like Android companies are, since according to you Apple is the thief??

Sorry but the Apple theft idea is not panning out in reality.

The most funny part of it is people will say "Well Android is the bigger target!" interesting because in the mobile market Apple is making more then 50% of the profits. You would think they would be the target since they Apple is making all the money.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Greedy
by MOS6510 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Internal Apple documents show that Apple copied Sony, yet fanboys dismiss that.


This has been dismissed, because it wasn't the case.

Reply Parent Score: 1